Another season comes to an end, except for those players required by England Saxons for the Churchill Cup this month and those who have interrupted their holidays to thrill a small crowd at the Millennium Stadium on Saturday, when the Barbarians come calling. Anyone involved in the Churchill Cup who impresses enough to be named in England's larger World Cup squad will not get much of a break.

The International Rugby Board recently hosted a Tier One-nation conference on the game's finances. Countries such as Australia pointed out how much they lost in World Cup years, because of a lack of incoming tours. The Australian Rugby Union wants World Cups to be pushed back a month, so they start in October. If that happens in 2015, when England will be the host, half the tournament will be staged after the clocks have gone back.

Clubs in Britain, Ireland, France and Italy will then be without their leading players for three months, rather than two, making it more likely they will exert pressure on players below Tier One level to make themselves unavailable for the World Cup – devaluing the tournament.

What do Australia care, just as there is never any mention of player welfare when means are explored to squeeze more money out of broadcasters, sponsors and spectators?

There seems to be a theory that the more a season is spread out, the more it will sell. Evening newspapers used to operate on this theory: maximise the time on the shelf to optimise sales. Deadlines came forward to the point where most evening titles now print the night before publication and compete with morning papers. The decrease in circulation has not been halted.

More than 80,000 were at Twickenham last Saturday for the Aviva Premiership final between Saracens and Leicester, but virtually 50,000 fewer turned up the following day to watch England's possibles against the Barbarians. Wales would be happy with 32,000 in Cardiff this Saturday – the Welsh Rugby Union needs June to yield £1m to help fund a deal with its four regions.

So at a time when players should be lounging on sunbeds, they are required to entertain. And if they are being squeezed, so are spectators. Some fans have found themselves debating whether to renew their club season ticket and cut back on internationals or to ration club visits and spend the saved money on Tests.

Saracens may have beaten Leicester for the title, but they barely average 8,000 for a league match at Vicarage Road. The Tigers pull in more than 21,000. Sarries became just the fifth club to win the Premiership but if they are to avoid following Newcastle and Sale, who found the crown to be a bad fit, unlike Leicester and Wasps, they will need to fill their new ground at Barnet Copthall, when they move next year, as well as continuing to play at Wembley.

No one has a bigger deficit than Saracens – it was more than £6m at the last count – but their South African backers are willing to bankroll success. The question is for how long. Winning the title will add to Sarries' cachet.

Last weekend's final turned out to be as close as the one between Leicester and Saracens the previous year, but this time one team was markedly superior. The Tigers kept going but the closer Saracens got to the moment of reckoning, the more they trusted their defence.

It was a triumph for Brendan Venter, who as the club's director of rugby last season was banned from Twickenham for the final after ranting and raving from his seat at Welford Road. He returned to South Africa in January but he regularly visits in an advisory capacity and Sarries are very much a team in his mould – one in, all in.

If a team is only as strong as its weakest link, Saracens are worthy champions. They lost fewer matches in the regular season than any other club, beat Leicester and Northampton twice and defeated every other team at least once. They may, like South Africa, have exploited weaknesses and minimised mistakes and they may have suffered far less than their rivals from international call-ups in November and during the Six Nations, but their rise from a team noted for inconsistency and wasteful expenditure has been impressive.

No one in the Premiership is more adept at defending a lead. It would have been interesting to see how Saracens would have responded had Leicester been leading by more than a converted try in the second half, but there is more to them than guts and grit. They had Leicester's measure and how often does one side beat the Tigers three times in a season?

The other trophy winners in England were Harlequins [Amlin Challenge Cup] and Gloucester [LV Cup]. Northampton found Leinster too much in the Heineken Cup final, but given the way the economy is affecting the Premiership and the tweaks that will be given to the salary cap to benefit those with generous benefactors, it may be that qualification for the Heineken Cup is about to become less of an uncertainty for the leading English teams.

Leicester apart, few English clubs have a long run in the Heineken Cup. Gloucester and Harlequins will be back in next season, but Wasps have missed out. With Saracens and Bath having wealthy owners, and Leicester and Northampton being the only profitable clubs in the top flight, the top six may feature the same names over the next few seasons. Next September and October will be interesting, however, as the Premiership will be played during the World Cup.

Leinster were the team of the season by some way, winning the Heineken Cup and defeating the best teams in England and France on their way. Exeter, though, were perhaps the success story of the season, going through their first campaign in the Premiership without the fear of relegation. Rob Baxter may not have been named coach of the season, but what team defied expectation more?

Flying Fijians could be grounded

Fiji were the Exeter of the 2007 World Cup. Expected to struggle in the group, there they were in the quarter-final, against South Africa. They were level with the eventual champions with 20 minutes to go.

Fiji are in South Africa's group in New Zealand this autumn, along with Wales, Samoa and Namibia. It looks, on paper, the most competitive pool but the Fijians have been threatening to boycott the event. Since the military coup in Fiji in 2006, New Zealand has operated a travel ban on anyone linked with the regime. It is a policy designed to help restore democracy on the island and it means that any player who has ties to the government will not be allowed to enter the country for the World Cup.

The New Zealand prime minister, John Key, said this week that threats to boycott the World Cup would not prompt a shift in policy. Vidya Lakhan, president of the Fiji Association of Sports and the National Olympic Committee, said the ban amounted to political interference in team selection.

"If Fiji cannot send its best team to take part in the World Cup then we should consider boycotting the tournament," he said. "Whoever we select must be allowed to take part in the World Cup, which is an International Rugby Board event. It is not a New Zealand one."

The Fiji Rugby Union has not supported calls for a boycott. The IRB is working behind the scenes to find a solution but under the terms of the host union agreement, the New Zealand government is acting within its rights. There is a clause relating to fair passage, but it is trumped by foreign policy.

The IRB is confident Fiji will be at the World Cup. "We will discuss the situation with the relevant parties to determine a sensible and agreed solution to any such issues as they arise," said a spokesperson.

It is just as well Zimbabwe have not qualified.

• This is an extract from our free rugby union email, The Breakdown. If you want to subscribe all you have to do is sign up here.